The Vitruvian Virtues of Architecture: Utilitas, Firmitas, Venustas

No more famous slogan has been invented for the essential components of architectural values than Vitruviuss fa-
mous three of utilitas (function? commodity? utility?), firmitas (solidity? materiality?), and venustas (beauty? delight?
desire?). Despite the famous attempts to fix the meaning of the three terms, it is evident that their location within
the Vitruvian triad has cast a spell over any etymological analysis. Clearly, what Vitruvius intended was a unity in
the face of difference, or, alternatively, a resistant diversity in the face of imposed unity. Although this Janusian goal
resembles Jacques Lacans equally problematic proposal for the unity-in-diversity of the imaginary, the symbolic, and
the Real as components of human subjectivity (or mind, or life ), no one has undertaken a comparison of Vitru-
viuss triad to Lacans. Yet, there are some compelling reasons why this comparison should be made. First, Lacan com-
pared the relationships of the imaginary, symbolic, and Real to the Borromeo knot, a triad of overlapping rings where
the connection of any two is made by the presence of a third. Remove or cut one of the rings, and the other two fall
apart. The role of the third thing to guarantee the unity of two others, which are not commensurable on their own,
suggests that the typical paradoxes that plague Vitruviuss translators (materiality v. imagination? form v. substance?)
could benefit from this topological approach. Three considerations are needed to set up this comparison: (1) How ar-
chitects make specifications the fact that architects are restricted to a symbolic level of communication with those
who actually construct buildings is very important; (2) How architects conceive of and articulate the outcomes and ac-
complishments of their designs and the dependence of these conceptions on collectively maintained fantasies about
how buildings work and are used; and (3) How unsymbolizable values, such as beauty, are somehow incorporated
anyway in the process of symbolic specification and fantasized results. This last issue must be parsed into two parts,
a set of problems related to the extrinsic realities of architecture (ecology, building technologies, etc.) and intrinsic
gaps or inconsistencies that constitute the kernels of values that resist paraphrase, caption, or explanation.

Three motives may be imputed to Vitruvius in his articulation of the three clas-
Real sic architectural values of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas. The first is the idea that
architectural accomplishment constitutes a kind of completion, a unity brought to
component parts that, on their own, are highly differential. Secondly, by inclusion of
venustas, Vitrivius considers that not only the objects of architecture are important
but also their audiences, and that esthetics can be considered apart from use and
even solidity, even when the occupants of a building are busy enjoying its conve-
niences. The third Vitruvian aspiration seems to be indicated simply by the highly
differential nature of the three components: that architecture, whatever it might be,
imaginary symbolic
is a unity that is not allowed to transcend difference but must find a certain topo-
logical congruence that cannot be flattened out on to a map or representation (i.e.
considered from some extrinsic point of view outside of architecture).
venustas
The topological form of the Vitruvian triad can be compared to the Borromeo knot
(and, hence, to Lacans use of this form) in that the relation of any two elements is
dependent on the relation to an (absent) third. In the design of the Borromeo rings,
the relations of any two elements can be described as metonymical a condition
of contiguity, of touching, of contingency. In language, metonymy has to do with
the meaning effect generated by a partial string of signifiers, where the signified
(referent) as such is postponed or absent. For example, the crown, one element
of the kings symbolic paraphernalia, stands for the king. Detached from the king
utilitas firmitas (absence of the referent, the signified), it still has a certain uncanny power, as if to
say that the order of cause and effect has been reversed: whoever wears the crown
is the king.
Metonymy in architecture has to do with how boundaries are drawn to make parts
that have this representative magic. In this sense, every project is but a fragment
of other possible projects, and the house implies the city: the meaning effect of the
utopian microcosm. Because every built project is a partial object a fragment in
comparison to a larger whole that it specifies by asserting itself as an example of
signifying chain
how things should be done the boundary is significant because it relates to the
reality out there, what is in popular terms the solid world of facts. But, there are
also inside frames that refer to a kernel of the Real that, in every architectural proj-
ect, works as the gamblers tell, or truth-revealing detail. This can be an internal
unintended inconsistency, a hidden flaw; or, as in the work of Carlo Scarpa, it can
metonymy be a detail that reveals the entire idea of the building. In ancient building practices,
this kernel would be addressed by sacrificing a victim and burying it with ritual that
part to part relationship
meaning effect is postponed, secured its place as the guarantee of the buildings solidity and security.
absent
TWO kinds of partiality, TWO kinds of boundaries, and TWO kinds of Reals, one ly-
also: ing outside and the other lying inside, as a kernel of truth, constitute architectures
ability to specify meaning effects while limited to the literal specifications of firmitas,
contiguity (versus semblance) the contract drawings that tell the contractor how to put up the building. How does
adjacency this happen?
contingency
organ Metonymy prepares the way for metaphor an image of unity that turns the bound-
touch (stereognosis) ary of a project into an arbitrary frame that could be moved in any direction and still
sequentiality be a frame of a consistent world lying beyond the literal limits of the project. Meta-
phor is required to conceive of the unity of the triad of Vitruvian virtues, but it must
 be sustained by a fantasy that covers the partiality of the metonymical project, the outside
Real and the inside Real. How does metaphor work?
orthogonal = independent
representation A diagram of metaphor and metonymy, as vectors connected by an orthogonal angle,
(metaphor)
describes how metonymy works silently within metaphoric representation, which is the
received meaning attributed to an architectural work. The necessarily fragmentary nature
of any literal communication gives rise to a meaning effect, where the fragment is taken to
be sufficiently representative. The set of contract drawings does not specify every aspect of
even the materiality of a building, but it is taken, by mutual agreement, to be sufficiently
representative enough to get the building constructed. Any two of the Vitruvian elements
artifact could be considered as combinations of metonymy and metaphor. If utilitas is the basis
(metonymy)
silent for the hoped-for (meaningful) outcome of firmitas, we have the essential structure of the
sacrifice of foundation rites. Utilitas becomes the fetish value1 of a victim, buried beneath
the foundation stone. Quite literally, utility supports the concrete integrity of the building by
being silenced in the ritual of sacrifice.
King as metaphor-
symbol
Alternatively, firmitas could be seen as the silent operator, determined by relationships of
contiguity, that affords the buildings symbolic usefulness. The orthogonal angle guarantees
independence of utilitas and firmitas as different orders of decision-making. Given that a
certain function is desired, there are many material procedures that might accomplish that
King end. Conversely, wood can be used to construct a house, a temple, a fort. Orthogonality/
material
supports independence corresponds to the relation of two rings in the Borromeo knot: one lies on top
(metonymy) of the other without intersecting. Their bond is determined by a third ring in this case
venustas. Why make a temple out of wood instead of stone? The choice becomes one of
esthetics (or a deeper value hidden in the term venustas).
crown
(part of kings Just as the crown, separated from the king, is able to take on a certain demonic power
paraphernalia
through its status as a partial object (where the absence of the king is a constitutive factor
(!)
in the power), the role of the third thing as the absent element can be attached to some
object that, in turn, takes on a numinous quality: a mysterium tremendum et fascinans
(fearful and fascinating mystery) as Rudolf Otto in his book, The Idea of the Holy, might
say. Absence can be manifested in many ways: inaccessibility, invisibility (or blindness),
crown incommensurability, paradox, contradiction, the uncanny. Where, in the relationship be-
tween any two of the Vitruvian elements, a third is made absent, that third becomes the
name and in many ways the determinant of the orthogonal relationship, something that
guarantees the two qualities of their hinged relationship: independence and bonding. And,
because one of the elements of the hinged pair is a silent operator, this silence is translated
into a boundary condition specified by this third, missing, element.
Making Specifications. How does architecture differ from other fields? Apart from the
discursive domains
obvious focus of its concern on the conditions of the built environment, the key lies in how
architects make their intentions specific. Amidst the variety of types of communications in-
volved with architecture, the central feature of architecture as a practice is the set of draw-
ings used to instruct the contractor how to bring the building into being. They do not convey
object subject
ideas but, rather, metonymical procedures, written in the imperative voice.
Other fields are not so different. Scientists specify theories by describing experimental data.
sciences . . . arts Literary critics do the same with the evidence of creative writing. Artists also specify; their
creations require perhaps the most material of realities used by any field: a here-and-now
that constitutes an objective event directed towards a subjective reception. The differences
among fields seems to be in how and to what degree the terms of specification value and
depict the objective or the subjective, the Real of externalities or the Real of subjective
being. These two poles, operating in tension, mean that, for example, no matter how alien
the interaction of subatomic particles to the subject as such, physicists must still use rheto-
ric (i.e. subjective considerations of the audience) to convince their colleagues of the truth
of their theories. And, no matter how impulsive or personal an artists expression, the art
object or event must dwell exclusively in a material form.
On one hand, this suggests that the architectural triad of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas is
not unique to architecture; that its terms are made to express the compromise between
the external Real and the internal, subjective Real. On the other hand, this suggests that
architecture itself is bound to consider how the more universal conditions of the Borromeo
topology constitute the template against which the three terms of its operation must be
understood.
The Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real. In an important sense, Lacans specifica-
tion of the three elements of the psyche (or subject, or mind ) is fundamental. Why? This
has to do with the relation of any form of specification, in any field, to the way signifiers
are arranged, and how signifiers are used to specify things that resist signification. Clearly,
Vitruvius was aware of this problem in his choice of elements, one which could be specified
clearly (firmitas), one which was the subject of the collective fantasies about what buildings
are for (utilitas), and the completely unsymbolizable value of beauty, venustas. The symbol-
ic, imaginary, and Real are about the powers and limits of signification, not about the three
elements as categories to be explained in alternative vocabularies.

1 A fetish involves the communal acceptance of something known to be false or, at least, imaginary. It
contrasts an actual reality with a stronger, imaginary Real.
 Taking the issue of signification seriously is not so difficult; in fact,
it is a part of architectures historical means of dealing with such
things as the image, the dream, magic, desire, and decorum. I
cannot cover even a fraction of these here. Instead, I will put for-
ward some shorthand relationships that can be recognized in the
historical examples already familiar to the reader. The first is that
of anamorphosis: an image-within-an-image that, typically, must
be viewed from a specific spot to correct the geometral distortion
that, viewed face-on, appears only as a blur. The most famous case
in painting is, perhaps, Hans Holbeins painting, The Ambassadors,
a straightforward portrait of two gentlemen beneath whose feet an
elongated blur reveals itself from the right angle to be a memento
mori skull. Anamorphy is more general than the case of the geome-
tral distortion. It can be present in figure-ground relationships,
puns, and other elements concealed within salient material.
Anamorphy is one prototypical means of placing, within the or-
thogonal relationship between a voiced and a silent element, a
third, absent, thing. Why anamorphy? If the silent element is the
fragmentary metonymy that creates a basis for the imagistic or
symbolic meaning effect, then anamorphy is the condition by which
metonymys necesssarily missing parts return to the field of mean-
ing as a kind of epiphany (cf. James Joyce). The technical term for
this return is synecdoche, the form of metonomy where the part
asserts the role of the whole. Isnt this the case with Holbeins skull?
The ambassadors are represented by material paint, applied with
such skill that we suppress our knowledge that the painting is re-
ally oil and pigment on wood and say that it is a representation of
two men. A function of this paint is the blur that appears to violate
the rules of perspective and representational clarity. Yet, by finding the sub-
jective correlate (the point of view) to this objective smudge reveals a mean-
ing that transcends the required division of object and subject. In fact, in this
particular case, Holbein went to extensive pains to involve this anamorphic
image in a geometry that connects the skull to a crucifix nearly hidden by the
green curtain. Together, elements sketch out an isosceles triangle whose ver-
tex matches the angle of the sun (27) at 4 p.m. over London on Good Friday,
meaning effect of 1533, the precise date and time calculated to be the Apocalypse (3x500 + 33,
the subject (POV) Christs age at the time of crucifixion).
R2 The Real of the apocalypse is, therefore, the anamorphic and synecdochic
return that erupts within the context of carefully segregated means and end
crucifix of representation. It is the venustas that binds together the utilitas (repre-
sentation) and firmitas (painterly technique and material basis) of the paint-
ing. The fact that anamorphosis shows how the Real can operate in the plane
of the material specification suggests a complex of relationships that expands
the original orthogonal angle model.
Apocalypse
Zone of anamorphosis, Idiotic Symmetry. With three elements in the Borromeo topology, its nec-
where metaphor is essary to show how two of them can be related in a way that circles around.
R1 reinterpreted through In every case, there will be two related things connected by an absent
metonymy/synecdoche third. On the smallest scale, we could show a hinge of two orthogonal (in-
meaning effect dependent but connected) vectors and give, as a name of this hinge, the
of the object (VP/ missing third element. This is an abstract approach, however. Each succes-
horizon, etc.)
sive relationship of the next two elements would have to be re-labelled, with
three such conditions described by its own diagram.
There is a basis for going beyond this segmented approach, based on the idea
that there are two versions of the Real an external Real (R1) correspond-
ing to the popular culture idea of reality out there, and an internal Real (R2)
that is a gap in ordinary reality that corresponds to paradox, self-reference,
and other insconsistences native to subjectivity itself. This R2 is akin to the
statement of the Cretan Liar who says All Cretans are liars, leading us to
the circular consideration that, if he is telling the truth, he is not telling the
truth; or, if he is lying, then he is truthful.
These two kinds of Real point constitute two kinds of boundary conditions. R1
has to do with the idea of an external limit, R2 with an internal limit. The for-
mer is commonly encountered in the idea of the horizon, an outer bound that,
like a vanishing point, moves as we move. Just like the pot of gold at the end
of the rainbow, we cannot reach it. As soon as we think we do, it vanishes
and/or relocates. This does not mean that we cannot fantasize about reaching
such a boundary. Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, we can have a concussion
and imagine a benevolent cyclone that transports us to this impossible Real
as a domain of magical beings.
Is there a relation between R1 and R2? A stronger form of this question would
be, Is there a symmetry? This would in effect be a form of suture, the
impossible identity between the center and periphery expressed in Pascals metaphor of God
as a being whose center is everywhere and center nowhere. Mythographers would note that
such was the idea implicit in the hearths/altars of shamanistic cultures who identified the cen-
tral fire with the four quarters of the sensible universe, and sought evidence of gods inten-
tions by dissecting organs of sacrificed animals. The relation of temples (tem = to divide) to
the quartered sky has been widely documented.
In topology, as well as in the closed curved Einsteinian universe, there is no center or edge,
which is to say that any point works simultaneously as a center and edge. With the Mbius
band, there is no twist except when the band itself is cast within a projective space, an arti-
ficial externality that the Mbius band, as a topology, does not have. The twist is the logical
impasse between evidence that there are two sides to the strip and evidence that there is
only one side. This twist occurs anywhere and everywhere; it is intrinsic to the topology of the
Mbius band.
With these considerations as justification, the two Reals extrinsic and intrinsic can be
adopted as the basis for their symmetrical relationship. What, then, might be the twist that
makes this a non-intuitive (intransitive) relationship? By coupling two orthogonal vector
pairs, we can state both the objective and subjective interests of specification the poles
that define discourse by the specifications that come to terms with the competing interests of
the subject and objective material conditions. With objective interests situated with the ex-
ternal Real, or R1, subjective interests, such as point-of-view, reception, meaning effects, etc.,
can be situated with the internal or intrinsic Real, R2. To make the vector pairs symmetrical,
one must mirror the other vertically as well as horizontally. This fortuitously approximates a
Mbius band if the extremities of each are connected with a line running across and through
(both descriptions must be in some sense accurate) the intersection of the vector pairs.
What is the intersection? If the specifications of the various forms of discourse are counted
as enunciations or representations, then the model of Holbeins anamorphy-haunted portrait
can be used. The crossing/intersection of the image (imaginary) by the Real is, in Holbeins
and other cases, the anamorphic blur implicating the connection of the (metonymical) inter-
ests of the subject and the object. In the former case we have the impossible re-location of
the subject, identified with a kernel of the self, so to speak (a demonic element, a spirit).
In the latter we have the inaccessible horizon that can be reached only at the expense of
an apocalypse of meaning, where we imagine reality as a two dimensional image through
which we escape via a hole or tear, as in Giottos painting of an angel rolling up the painting
of human history, or the exit door in the final scene of The Truman Show, allowing Truman to
escape the artificial ecosphere constructed to dupe him.
The symmetrically arranged vector pairs, the termini R1 and R2 locations and their criss-cross
anamorphic line, the plane of representation/specification where metonymy reasserts itself
as synecdoche, are means of elaborating the Borromeo knot while preserving its logic of
the absent third within a persistent symmetry. Within this matrix of graphic elements, the
metaphoric logic of any set of elements aspiring to (1) completeness, (2) complexity, and (3)
predictability, or rule-based behavior i.e. system leads to some diagram including the
symmetry of parts qualified by an illicit element that quilts together the otherwise flat ele-
ments so that a topology rather than a flat-space graphic is the real result.
Any diagram is speculative, temporary, and only partially successful. The point is not accu-
rate, authoritative representation as such but, rather, a the construction of a temporary bridge
across which speculation may smuggle such illegal goods as insights connecting otherwise
hostile forms of discourse, Rosetta stones capable of resolving conflicting terms and vocabu-
laries, and keys unlocking ideological impasses. The Vitruvian goals of completion (naming
everything thats important to name), inclusion of the audience as well as the objects of ar-
chitecture, and a resistance to collapsing the complexity of architecture as a space of enun-
ciation, however much this space may itself resist characterization, have been met if such a
diagram can, even briefly, allow such contraband.
Or, perhaps it is like the joke about the factory worker whose wheelbarrow of straw was
searched every day by security guards who found nothing, who later confessed to a retired
guard after he himself had settled into a comfortable old age, that after all it was wheelbar-
rows he was smuggling. To use another analogy, if our desire to make our procedures and
assumptions transparent is like arithmetic, our self-reasoning in practice is like geometry and
algebra, and our unanticipated discoveries like calculus, our ability to extend beyond the dis-
course specific to our terms and practices depends on topology, which, like Coleridges willing
suspension of disbelief, allows us a form of knowledge-without-knowing, a practice that tells
us what we have found without looking.